Uber called its recent union deal ‘historic.’ A new complaint alleges it was actually against the law — and so not actually historic.
Uber is again fighting another major class-action suit over the company’s use of the word “taxi” in its marketing. This time, plaintiffs are alleging the word is misleading and violates federal law prohibiting deceptive advertising.
The suit was amended as part of a change to the complaint. It now claims that Uber’s use of the word “taxi” is deceptive and is “likely to confuse and mislead customers into thinking that Uber offers taxi services and that Uber is a taxi company.”
The amended complaint also states that Uber’s use of the word “taxi” is misleading in that it implies that Uber would be a competitor to a traditional taxi service, and that the company, when advertising in the US, “uses the word ‘taxi’ in its advertisements by itself in its own marketing efforts and in other types of advertising that may be used to disseminate its goods and services.”
In addition, plaintiffs claim that the word’s use in advertising and promotions by Uber is likely to confuse and mislead customers into accepting and relying on the false advertisement of Uber’s taxi-related services.
The latest amended suit was filed by the National Consumer Law Center in New York on behalf of several people who allege they were misled when looking up a nearby Uber driver who advertised an opportunity to “Pay up to 10% tip” on a trip. The suit states that the plaintiff contacted the Uber driver and discovered that the “tip” was supposed to be “commission,” but instead, the driver told him that it was a small commission.
Uber claims to have made money on its UberX platform by taking a smaller commission from rides in which it has a financial interest, and now is claiming that it has been misleading customers in doing so.
The amended complaint claims that “the fact that Uber requires its customers to agree to pay a tip, even when they are not required to do so to get a ride, but then makes that tip smaller for trips in which the customers have to pay a price the drivers would likely not have been willing to pay in the